Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don't make me repeat the obvious, idiot! I have listed your notions I find erroneous and explained why I consider them so. What could be more basic and simple than that? How is that "running away"? Duh....Because you ran away from the debate! I’m not going to dig through you past comments. You called foul on the things I said. Pick one and explain why you think I’m lying.
You don't find it amazing and unlikely the NY Times is siding with Ken Starr on thisOk neither of your points dispute anything that I’ve said. I don’t care what Ken starr says. It has nothing to do with my statement explaining what mueller said about feeling he couldn’t accuse the president of any crimes so he punted to congress. I don’t agree with what he did but that is what happened.
I haven't seen anything specifically that could be considered a lie. Why do I need to make your case for you? Is it that weak?Also the report never said No Obstruction so how about you concede that Trump lies about that one.
Sounds like even you will not defend the idea of obstruction. Smart move.Also, you can think the case for obstruction is ridiculous all you want. I never said it was strong or weak, I just said that mueller obviously did not clear trump.
You have not shown one of my statements as untrue. You inject elements that have nothing to do with my points and argue against those. That’s called a straw man. You beat the straw man each time but try just once to stick to the topic and address my statementsDon't make me repeat the obvious, idiot! I have listed your notions I find erroneous and explained why I consider them so. What could be more basic and simple than that? How is that "running away"? Duh....Because you ran away from the debate! I’m not going to dig through you past comments. You called foul on the things I said. Pick one and explain why you think I’m lying.
This is something you illustrate. Not claim. Anyone can claim the straw man. Proving the straw man is somewhat more difficult.You have not shown one of my statements as untrue. You inject elements that have nothing to do with my points and argue against those. That’s called a straw man. You beat the straw man each time but try just once to stick to the topic and address my statements
The NY Times and Starr could be right in their interpretation. Perhaps Mueller didn’t want to be the decider that unseated a president so he punted to Congress. Who knows... but that has nothing to do with my point that Mueller did. It exonerate Trump from Obstruction in his report. See this is the straw man I was talking about in my last post!You don't find it amazing and unlikely the NY Times is siding with Ken Starr on thisOk neither of your points dispute anything that I’ve said. I don’t care what Ken starr says. It has nothing to do with my statement explaining what mueller said about feeling he couldn’t accuse the president of any crimes so he punted to congress. I don’t agree with what he did but that is what happened.
and possibly disagreeing with Robert Mueller? Really? Okay....
I haven't seen anything specifically that could be considered a lie. Why do I need to make your case for you? Is it that weak?Also the report never said No Obstruction so how about you concede that Trump lies about that one.
Sounds like even you will not defend the idea of obstruction. Smart move.Also, you can think the case for obstruction is ridiculous all you want. I never said it was strong or weak, I just said that mueller obviously did not clear trump.
You don't see anything you would consider a lie from Trump?! Are you joking?You don't find it amazing and unlikely the NY Times is siding with Ken Starr on thisOk neither of your points dispute anything that I’ve said. I don’t care what Ken starr says. It has nothing to do with my statement explaining what mueller said about feeling he couldn’t accuse the president of any crimes so he punted to congress. I don’t agree with what he did but that is what happened.
and possibly disagreeing with Robert Mueller? Really? Okay....
I haven't seen anything specifically that could be considered a lie. Why do I need to make your case for you? Is it that weak?Also the report never said No Obstruction so how about you concede that Trump lies about that one.
Sounds like even you will not defend the idea of obstruction. Smart move.Also, you can think the case for obstruction is ridiculous all you want. I never said it was strong or weak, I just said that mueller obviously did not clear trump.
I don’t defend obstruction because I think it is a weak case and not worth impeaching a president over although he is obviously guilty of intended obstruction. But he wasn’t found to have committed conspiracy and didn’t do anything that substantially impacted the investigation, so move on.You don't find it amazing and unlikely the NY Times is siding with Ken Starr on thisOk neither of your points dispute anything that I’ve said. I don’t care what Ken starr says. It has nothing to do with my statement explaining what mueller said about feeling he couldn’t accuse the president of any crimes so he punted to congress. I don’t agree with what he did but that is what happened.
and possibly disagreeing with Robert Mueller? Really? Okay....
I haven't seen anything specifically that could be considered a lie. Why do I need to make your case for you? Is it that weak?Also the report never said No Obstruction so how about you concede that Trump lies about that one.
Sounds like even you will not defend the idea of obstruction. Smart move.Also, you can think the case for obstruction is ridiculous all you want. I never said it was strong or weak, I just said that mueller obviously did not clear trump.
You don't see anything you would consider a lie from Trump?! Are you joking?
How about when he said Muellers report said “No collusion, No Obstruction, Total vindication” none of which the mueller report says. It doesn’t get more black and white than that
Obviously from Trump's perspective he is vindicated. That you disagree with his opinion does not make it a lie.
I pointed out your strawman in my last response to you when you used it.This is something you illustrate. Not claim. Anyone can claim the straw man. Proving the straw man is somewhat more difficult.You have not shown one of my statements as untrue. You inject elements that have nothing to do with my points and argue against those. That’s called a straw man. You beat the straw man each time but try just once to stick to the topic and address my statements
At least he is finally admitting that Russia targeted Clinton and interfered in the election. Baby steps...Nor was it what Trump said to the Russians who did interfere in our election, when he brought them gleefully, to the Oval Office the day after he fired Comey....That’s not what Trump said on national tv with Lester Holt. Nice try, but like Trump, you got your foot in your mouthYou give Clinton too much credit. The intelligence investigations had nothing to do with her. Mueller was hired by Trump appointed Rosenstein after the election and because of Flynn lying about meeting with Russians and Trump firing Comey for not dropping the Flynn and Russia investigation. Simple as that
No Trump fired Comey for meddeling in a US election, he deserved to be fired for costing Hillary the Election
Simple as that.
.
Hillary interfered in Russias Election, Russia payed her back. That's how the real world works, you play with fire you will get burned.
When he says the report says “no collusion and no obstruction” that is a lie it does not say that. Come on man. Wake up!!!You don't see anything you would consider a lie from Trump?! Are you joking?
How about when he said Muellers report said “No collusion, No Obstruction, Total vindication” none of which the mueller report says. It doesn’t get more black and white than that
You don't see anything you would consider a lie from Trump?! Are you joking?
How about when he said Muellers report said “No collusion, No Obstruction, Total vindication” none of which the mueller report says. It doesn’t get more black and white than that
No obstruction and no collusion. Not charged with either one.
Why would you go by my narrative if you disagree with it?At least he is finally admitting that Russia targeted Clinton and interfered in the election. Baby steps...Nor was it what Trump said to the Russians who did interfere in our election, when he brought them gleefully, to the Oval Office the day after he fired Comey....That’s not what Trump said on national tv with Lester Holt. Nice try, but like Trump, you got your foot in your mouthNo Trump fired Comey for meddeling in a US election, he deserved to be fired for costing Hillary the Election
Simple as that.
.
Hillary interfered in Russias Election, Russia payed her back. That's how the real world works, you play with fire you will get burned.
No just going by your narrative.
.
He was not charged with either offense. Or did I miss something? You've got to let go of the battles you aren't able to win.When he says the report says “no collusion and no obstruction” that is a lie it does not say that. Come on man. Wake up!!!
Yes I realize that’s how he is spinning it... but we are talking about lies and truth and to say the report says something that it doesn’t (No obstruction) is a straight up lie.You don't see anything you would consider a lie from Trump?! Are you joking?
How about when he said Muellers report said “No collusion, No Obstruction, Total vindication” none of which the mueller report says. It doesn’t get more black and white than that
Obviously from Trump's perspective he is vindicated. That you disagree with his opinion does not make it a lie.
Why would you go by my narrative if you disagree with it?At least he is finally admitting that Russia targeted Clinton and interfered in the election. Baby steps...Nor was it what Trump said to the Russians who did interfere in our election, when he brought them gleefully, to the Oval Office the day after he fired Comey....That’s not what Trump said on national tv with Lester Holt. Nice try, but like Trump, you got your foot in your mouth
Hillary interfered in Russias Election, Russia payed her back. That's how the real world works, you play with fire you will get burned.
No just going by your narrative.
.
Are you really trying to say that if somebody isn’t charged with a crime it means they didnt do anything wrong? So under those standards Hillary can say that the FBI found she did nothing wrong regarding her email server?He was not charged with either offense. Or did I miss something? You've got to let go of the battles you aren't able to win.When he says the report says “no collusion and no obstruction” that is a lie it does not say that. Come on man. Wake up!!!
Mueller's asides (Well, when Trump called the investigation a witch hunt that was an attempt to obstruct) do not constitute any sort of legal sanction or penalty.
The cop's suspicions that you probably did blow through that stop sign three miles back do not constitute a legally enforceable offense. Grow up. Pull up your fucking diapers and grow up.
Yes I realize that’s how he is spinning it... but we are talking about lies and truth and to say the report says something that it doesn’t (No obstruction) is a straight up lie.You don't see anything you would consider a lie from Trump?! Are you joking?
How about when he said Muellers report said “No collusion, No Obstruction, Total vindication” none of which the mueller report says. It doesn’t get more black and white than that
Obviously from Trump's perspective he is vindicated. That you disagree with his opinion does not make it a lie.
Please take a minute to read this which shows exactly what mueller said in his report regarding obstruction...
What the Mueller Report Says About Obstruction - FactCheck.org
In the hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!”
That’s not at all what the Mueller reportsays, though.
“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
Mueller, however, refrained from recommending prosecution, saying that there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump.
Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”
“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote.
Mueller emphasized, however, that his analysis of the evidence did not clear the president of obstruction. Said Mueller: “f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
Seth?! You mean the story that Hannity and Fox has to retract and apologize for? Aka Fake News?!?! Ok buddy keep running with that!Why would you go by my narrative if you disagree with it?At least he is finally admitting that Russia targeted Clinton and interfered in the election. Baby steps...Nor was it what Trump said to the Russians who did interfere in our election, when he brought them gleefully, to the Oval Office the day after he fired Comey....
Hillary interfered in Russias Election, Russia payed her back. That's how the real world works, you play with fire you will get burned.
No just going by your narrative.
.
Because when talking to uneducated voters who are fixated on MSM....
Btw the murder of Seth was never solved, it is still a cold case.
.
Explain to me "EXACTLY" how Clinton is interfering in elections in Russia, when she flags stories about her own election? Your article next to your own claims makes absolutely no sense. You grabbed this link out of your ass and called it Hillary interfering in Russia's election. WTF are you talking about? This article covers her election not Russia. LOl!That's a lie with no proof. Trump Toads are nothing but liars.Nor was it what Trump said to the Russians who did interfere in our election, when he brought them gleefully, to the Oval Office the day after he fired Comey....That’s not what Trump said on national tv with Lester Holt. Nice try, but like Trump, you got your foot in your mouthNo Trump fired Comey for meddeling in a US election, he deserved to be fired for costing Hillary the Election
Simple as that.
.
Hillary interfered in Russias Election, Russia payed her back. That's how the real world works, you play with fire you will get burned.
Yawn, watch something besides MSNBC and read something besides the Washington compost educate yourself, please and thank you
From liberal politico no less...
POLITICO
2016
Why Putin hates Hillary
Behind the allegations of a Russian hack of the DNC is the Kremlin leader's fury at Clinton for challenging the fairness of Russian elections.
By MICHAEL CROWLEY and JULIA IOFFE
07/25/2016 06:20 PM EDT
Hillary Clinton has never concealed her disdain for Russian President Vladimir Putin. | AP Photo
View attachment 263815
Edward Snowden weighs in on DNC leak
By CAROLINE KELLY
But the Clinton campaign has embraced the theory, with campaign manager Robby Mook seeming to endorse the notion of Russian involvement Sunday on CNN. Clinton aides have been gratified to see the story leap onto television, which had previously given little coverage to Trump’s views about Russia and noted that even Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer on Sunday called the allegation of Russian meddling “troubling” and “plausible.”
Story Continued Below
And while Clintonites realize that few Americans typically pay close attention to the state of U.S.-Russia relations, there are two important caveats. One is the presence of large Polish, Ukrainian and other eastern European populations in Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, where the Clinton campaign plans to flag stories about Trump and Putin for ethnic media outlets. The other is that voters of all stripes will surely pay attention to serious talk of foreign influence in the election.
While experts debate whether Putin would actually try to meddle in a U.S. election, there is consensus on the idea that Clinton is unloved within the Kremlin. “I think there is good and credible evidence that there is no love lost in Moscow for Mrs. Clinton,” said Eugene Rumer, a former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council now at the Carnegie Endowment for International
